|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 13:44:34 -
[1] - Quote
Some people say "everyone can get a malice!" but at first there are 64 teams and only 50 malices possible therefore this is clearly false. More, say cut the teams down to 32, you can have two of the ship in a match leaving the possibility of only some teams having two while others only having one. In a tournament there should be the POSSIBILITY of each team having the same ships even it it costs a ton. With alliance tournament ships this cannot be the case no matter how you wrangle it.
More! If a ship is very very good, then it is in the interest of the people who won it not to give it out to teams who might use it against them *duh* they then can use it in future alliance tournaments greatly increasing their chances at winning 50 more shinny ships.
I'm not opposed to there being bling on the feild or the teams having to spend an insane ammount of money on ****. But they should have to spend it on 'infinite' items like officer mods. Anyone *could* get an officer mod and over an infinite period of time there would be an infinite ammount of them, but over the same period of time there can only ever be 50 malices.
Now it wouldn't matter if these ships were at all balanced, but consider the malice. You can hear commentators say the malice has equivalent nueting to a curse, a curse is worth 13 points but the malice is only 4 so by bringing a smaller ship you save 9 points and get the same benefit. By this logic the malice should be easier to kill then the curse, but it ain't. Infact it is way harder to kill than a curse, more over it fills the slot of a regular assault frig more than aptly and can put out good damage and tackle. So you also get a assault frig out of it, that is 17 points of ships you replaced with a 4 point ship, that can do the job BETTER than the other ships.
This makes no sense to say its fair to be in game, it would be if there was an infinite amount of the ships but still cost 90b because then everyone could have one.
The Unbalanced nature of these ships is clear to everyone who watched the Exodus vs Camel match, not only would Exodus have won but Camel would have been destroyed with any other 4 point ship in its place. The camel logi would go down the exodus logi would start repping their BSs and maybe 1 of the exodus BSs would have gone down for the 2 camel, the Exodus support wing would have stayed alive and cleaned up the Camel team. But because there was a SINGLE malice on their team they neuted out the logi and caused the match to go the way it did. Put in a curse in that match less points elsewhere and could be killed fairly easy, put in a curor its place and that ship would have been blown up, ETC with other ships.
I have watched every AT i could, i love the AT and consider it better than other esport type events, but that single match made me not want to watch the rest of this one and future ones, why? because i know in matches that will be a good fight a AT ship will be brought and instead we will have a mockery of an tournament.
Commentators went on about the 'clean execution' of camel. There was no clean execution on camels part. There was no O WOW THAT WAS AWESOME PILOTING! there was simply malice. I do not say this to imply that camel is not a great team, it is. I say this simply to say that they lost this match if they didn't bring a malice, bad piloting or out comped or whatever the reason. |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 15:12:57 -
[2] - Quote
Bob Shaftoes wrote:Mordirth wrote:Commentators went on about the 'clean execution' of camel. There was no clean execution on camels part. There was no O WOW THAT WAS AWESOME PILOTING! there was simply malice. I do not say this to imply that camel is not a great team, it is. I say this simply to say that they lost this match if they didn't bring a malice, bad piloting or out comped or whatever the reason. What a pile of shite. All the malice gave us in that matchup was flexibility. If we replaced it with a tech II ship, we would have adjusted our tactics accordingly and still would have won the match.
All the malice gave you was 17 points for 4 points, a curse worth of neuts at better tank on a logi. Don't kid around you got tons from it not just flexibility.
Again i don't think you are a bad team, i would have loved to see you field a team against exodus without an AT ship and beat them handily which i believe you could have. But with the AT ship in there what you might have done doesn't matter only that you used an unbalanced AT mechanic which is inherently unfair and promotes repeat winners rather than actual competition. If AT ships as they are right now are allowed it gives repeat winners a huge advantage. |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 15:18:56 -
[3] - Quote
And of course people who have the advantage will fight to keep it (i would) but from a 3rd party perspective it is inherently unfair. BTW i bet on camel, not because i thought they would bring an AT ship but because i thought they were the better team. This was not shown in any way during the match and i should have lost my bet when exodus won.
I don't post on the forums, like ever. I don't like dealing with legions ;) of posters defending an indefensible position and by shear weight of numbers thinking they are correct. But i had to this time because i really do love the AT and think it would be a thousand times better without AT ships in them.
To the argument 'we gotta let them in because this is the only place they are used'. That isn't really a justification for letting them in the AT, the purpose of AT ships is to give an exclusive prize to the winner, that prize can be put in use many ways on TQ, for example by selling them to collectors for tons of money. Just because they aren't used by player choice on TQ doesn't mean that they can never be or should be given special status.
What i hope and pray to see is a repeat match vs exodus and you guys bringing a legit setup without an AT ship and just shutting them down i think it would be an awesome match to watch. If this matchup should happen you would have my bet again. I just wish it had happened this time. |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 16:49:53 -
[4] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:DeadDuck wrote:A Ettana having the same point base of a Basilisk, or a Malice having the same point values of a Retribution is laughable. A merlin having same point cost as rifter, a typhoon fleet issue having same point cost of armageddon navy issue...
Clearly we should make everything cost the same because there is a slight disparity between comparable hulls which results in them not being used everything should cost 1 point! Because its not the fact that merlin and rifters have the same tier bonuses and the same *basic* worth, its merely because they aren't optimal for the AT that there should be a cost difference. Your point is incorrect. Anyone willing to actually open their eyes and admit it sees that the malice has far more bonuses and has more worth to it than a retribution who's only job really is to tackle and tackle well. After all, isn't that the point of AT ships? To be OP compared to the same class of hull?
Infact when this years ships were first released there was complaining about them being to.... normal. And not really all that OP. |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 17:35:12 -
[5] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:Mordirth wrote:Your point is incorrect. Hold on, you didn't even get the point i was making. Comparing *anything* it to one of the ****-tier ships in current AT meta will show how ship you've picked is good, and it is getting you nowhere. Freki is much better than jaguar, utu is much better than ishkur, why aren't they used? Maybe you're looking for answers to your questions in the wrong place? Or your answer is far from being complete?
Maybe i don't understand your point but im trying to here. Is your point that comparing any ships to a ship not regularly used in the meta is pointless IE merlin vs rifter? Because of the fact that the rifter is useless and therefor even if it had 1 point would not be used?
If this is the case then my point still stands. If you compare a merlin and rifter they have the same basic worth even if the meta for the rifter isn't good. BUT a Malice and a Retribution do not have the same base worth therefore should not have the same base point cost.
for example freki and utu are much better than those other ships that you compared them too and should cost more than those ships, and this has nothing to do with the current meta. If next year the meta is compatible with a Freki and not a Malice the point cost to the comparable hulls should still be higher for both. Just because something isn't used this meta round doesn't mean it is *worth* less points than one that is being used as long as they have the same base worth taking meta out of the equation.
If i still misunderstand your point please help me out i really do want to understand.
My overall point is that it is ridiculous to support AT ships in the AT as it stands now, an AT ship is not comparable to the ships it has been grouped with in point cost. Raising the point cost might solve the problem but would need to be tested to see how it works out. Im not a "BAN IT NIAO" type of guy, but rather make a change test it next AT and hopefully it will fix the problem. I just can't understand how people actually think it is balanced the way it is now (unless they are merely fooling themselves or lying on purpose to maintain an advantage) |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 19:56:04 -
[6] - Quote
Jandice Ymladris wrote:Hm With all this talk of AT ships being fielded. they do seem limited in which ships are being used. Only the Malice was fielded multiple times & the Etana once (if I checked good) No other AT prize ships right? So what' s the reason for this? If I missed out an AT prize ship being fielded let me know
two main reasons are the insane fits of the etana and theneuts and the tank of the malice. |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 20:55:29 -
[7] - Quote
DHB WildCat wrote:As a member of warlords and owner of 12 unique shis. Including those you have seen thistourney already. I agree that for their point value they are overpowered and i would love to see them either banned all together or increased in point value.
Some of us that use them agree with you all. Dont lump us in with pl wanting to have the uber advantage. Yes we will use them. We want to win. However i would have some fun and waaayyyyyyy less stress if we didnt use them!!!
Understandable if there are rules you use them, i don't begrudge you this. Much respect for realizing the problem and admitting it. |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 21:34:17 -
[8] - Quote
Jandice Ymladris wrote:Hm, so it's actually not a case of AT ships being too powerful compared to others, but rather that a select few AT ships are just too strong compared to the point cost?
No, almost every ship across the board is more powerful than their counter part. But rather that the meta doesn't allow for some ships and others aren't worth the risk of cost fielding them. For example the drone meta of last year is gone, drones are gimpish now so the utu probably won't be fielded. Yet neuts are still extremely powerful so malices will still be seen. |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 21:43:05 -
[9] - Quote
Serena Greyskull wrote:DHB WildCat wrote:As a member of warlords and owner of 12 unique shis. Including those you have seen thistourney already. I agree that for their point value they are overpowered and i would love to see them either banned all together or increased in point value.
Some of us that use them agree with you all. Dont lump us in with pl wanting to have the uber advantage. Yes we will use them. We want to win. However i would have some fun and waaayyyyyyy less stress if we didnt use them!!! Lol, the hypocrisy of you guys calling us out for having an uber advantage while running 2 teams is astounding. For the record, i did the math. The best unique assault frigates are worth 2x the point cost of t2 assault frigates. The worst are about 1.3. The best cruisers are worth about 1.5x the point cost of other t2 cruisers, with the exception of the etana which is pricelss compared to the others (who own them again?) In terms of making them a higher point cost for next year, this potentially might be an answer. But people won't use them if you make them too high. If you think CCP hasn't thought about this before, youre mental. Why do you think they distributed the AT ships more fairly? The more teams that have them, the less advantage the big teams have. It just takes time. The only really OP ship that no other team has proper access to is the adrestia, and thats virtually useless this year, so I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill. What needs fixing is the goddamn collusion rules so we can have a fair tournament. Remember, we didnt bring ANY unique ships against any of the lower tier teams. They had as much chance based on shiptypes as everyone else.
You did the math? can we see it? id love to see exactly how you calculated this. Im being honest.
As to why they might be distributing the ships more, it could be to make people want to do the AT because while they can't get top place maybe they can still get something?
|
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 23:39:46 -
[10] - Quote
In regards to collusion, i understand it is hard to prove but without an event showing collusion it would be like judging guilty before any crime happened (psychopass) and that can't really be done yet nor should it be done. But if it does happen a extreme penalty must be dealt such that it will never happen again. More rules should be put out regardless.
As to the malice for example, you said 1.5x the points for a malice, but i believe this is to low because you do get a curse worth of neuts and at a faster cycle with more tank. i think it would more around 2.5. for the amount of pure ownage it brings to the battlefield. But that is what makes this part subjective based on what you judge about it and no matter what you decide would probably need twinking in future iterations. |
|
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.25 02:46:43 -
[11] - Quote
Captain Thunk wrote:Mordirth wrote:In regards to collusion, i understand it is hard to prove but without an event showing collusion it would be like judging guilty before any crime happened (psychopass) and that can't really be done yet nor should it be done. But if it does happen a extreme penalty must be dealt such that it will never happen again. More rules should be put out regardless.
I seem to recall them being banned from an AT for doing it before. Personally, I'm not so fussed. I just don't think it's exciting to watch for the spectators, especially when they put so little effort into hiding it.
If they did it before and are continuing to do it then clearly the punishment wasn't harsh enough ;p |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.25 16:17:01 -
[12] - Quote
Shamis Orzoz wrote:The malice is really the only ship that is drastically overpowered for it's point value.
etana. also the malice is basically the only ship being brought consistently and creating the problems every average viewer who knows anything about eve can see. so much anger about the malice on the twitch chat after camel v exodus. |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.29 20:44:58 -
[13] - Quote
No AT ships brought during the Camel v warlord matches, automatic AT ships against every else it seems. |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.29 20:57:50 -
[14] - Quote
Apothne "For a team not being able to bring AT ships they did the best they could."
Sums up the case against AT ships. |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.30 15:35:22 -
[15] - Quote
Cheesur "We know that Warlords can just put down a bunch of AT ships and get an easy 2-0"
Because AT ships aren't broken in the AT. So stupid how can they keep this up if this doesn't change there is no point watching or playing in the AT next year. Just give Warlords and Camel more ships why bother with this nonsense? |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.30 15:55:48 -
[16] - Quote
Can't throw money against it and it will work 100% yes you are correct chessur. But the point is that it gives such a huge advantage to put in AT ships and that these ships are not possible for every team to have, literally not possible no matter what you say.
You admit in your discussion in the stream that it is about money not about skill or effort. And this is the problem, CPP said they don't want it to be about input of money but currently it is. |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.30 15:57:24 -
[17] - Quote
Just get 10 players to farm up the money! Maybe they spend the time farming money to buy ships to play the game with and to get better at the game not to buy AT ships?
Edit: I would like to know how much money the teams that brought AT ships had to farm up to get them, not simply have them from winning previous games. Or trading AT ships to get the ships they desired, but actually specifically farm up money for the AT ships. |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.30 16:57:20 -
[18] - Quote
Jinche wrote:https://www.themittani.com/features/year-life-pandemic-legions-wallet
According to that article, PL spent 800B on the 10th alliance tournament. So, I guess about that
Just because you use a ship or lose a ship that costs alot doesn't mean you payed the cost of the ship, if you won it you didn't. If you traded it you really didn't also. The active act of farming the money specifily to buy the ship is what i want to know. |
Mordirth
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.30 17:31:02 -
[19] - Quote
Alekto Descendant wrote:Mordirth wrote:Jinche wrote:https://www.themittani.com/features/year-life-pandemic-legions-wallet
According to that article, PL spent 800B on the 10th alliance tournament. So, I guess about that Just because you use a ship or lose a ship that costs alot doesn't mean you payed the cost of the ship, if you won it you didn't. If you traded it you really didn't also. The active act of farming the money specifily to buy the ship is what i want to know. that doesn't happen the way you think it does. The Teams that have AT ships make enough money from passive income as an alliance to be able to afford it, and just consider the tournament into their alliance budget, much like we do. We simply place our bets that if we spend 800B on the tourney, and have a good shot at winning, our alliance makes 2T, so its a no brainier for us to spend the money. Plus, if the ships we buy don't die, we can always sell them latter, the value of AT ships only goes up (13B Adrestias are no longer a thing). I guess some team somewhere maybe had players trying to rat up enough for Cambion, but in reality, I doubt it... The teams that feel they need an AT ship are already pretty wealthy.
I get what you saying but my post was in response to cheesur saying "Just go farm up the money!" not that i actually believe it happens that way. I fully understand how much money a big alliance makes and thats the problem with AT ships in the tourney. Its a money based competition as it is it is not a skill based. This is not saying you teams are not skilled you are, but if you bring an AT ship to the game it totally imbalances the game and at a certain point doesn't matter how skilled you are this is why apothne said "Did they best they could without AT ships".
The best games of this weekend were games with no AT ships, espcailly from a viewers stand point. That match of exodus v nulli? dood a nail biter. AT ships ruin this competition as they are and im tired of people espcially commentators whos teams benefit from it defending it. The reason they are on there right now comes down to "OOO blingy explooooosions" like some fool from the borderlands franchise, rather than "Hey lets makes this competition as balanced and fair and fun to watch as possible" |
|
|
|